The value of Aaron Rodgers· Page 8

Rockmolder
Honored Member

14 years ago

I'd take Aaron Rodgers over Big Ben any day of the week, and that was before we learned that Ben may well be a sociopath.

The whole Big Ben belongs in the Hall just baffles me. Huh? I don't get it. Prove it to me. If you make the claim, you have to come up with the proof. And don't give me the 2 SB wins bullshit. Seriously. That's bullshit and you know it. The first win was the absolute WORST performance by a winning QB ever. Ever. In the history of the Super Bowl, NO ONE has had a performance near that bad and still won.

Geez. Like I said before, I want that guy to buy me a lottery ticket. Right place at the right time.

He's had one Pro Bowl. You don't put a QB in the Hall with one Pro Bowl.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Problem is, there are two schools of thought everywhere. One measures QB succes by individual performance and the other one by how many Super Bowls they've won.

The problem I have with that second one is that it totally ignores supporting cast. Even more than the first one. Those are the same people that got Terry Bradshaw into the HoF and are keeping Ken Anderson out.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

14 years ago

#72

As per Dhazer's request, I asked this question to the people over at PP.O. I tried not to single out Dhazer as the only one who's in favor of trading him, so I just told them there where 2 camps. I wanted to wait for Marrdro to respond before posting it over here, but you'll just have to check back later to see that.

http://www.purplepride.org/index.php/community/discussion/7-trash-the-pack/1048218-a-question-for-you-purple-people

So far, two people agree with Dhazer. And it surprises me that even those two agree, tbh. The Vikings know how hard it is to get a franchise QB. This is not about Rodgers, this is about QBs. I'm not a homer when I say that I wouldn't take that trade as the Chargers for Phillips and wouldn't take that trade as the Saints for Brees. You just don't trade away (young) franchise QBs.

Packers_Finland
Registered

14 years ago

#73

1st, 2nd, 3rd... let me see that.

I've done some research over the last 10 drafts recently.

1st Round - About 50% pan out at the level expected, about 25% become decent players, and about 25% bust.

2nd Round - About 50% become starters, the rest become backups or nobodies.

3rd Round - About 33% become starters, the rest become backups or nobodies.

(note: these percentages are measured after 5 years of that particular draft)

We would probably get 2 starters with those picks.

One of those picks would probably be a QB. The other would be, let's say a starting strong safety.

There's no reason to think Bradford or Clausen would come anywhere near Rodgers' level, very few QBs do. I'd much rather have Rodgers than a 50% chance of becoming a succesful QB and a starting safety.

This is a placeholder

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#74

"Rockmolder" wrote:

Thank you, Rock. That's a great example.

Another example for you young ones - I'd take McNabb over Ben R. McNabb's had TO for a few years and we all know how great of a team player TO is. Yes, he's an elite WR but he ended up killing that locker room.

Westbrook was elite too, but as an all-purpose player, not as a runner.

2004 was McNabb's year to win it all. 13-3 regular season, strong team both sides of the ball. SB comes and he's got to win the game alone as the Eagles rush for 45 yards. But the Patriots were just the more complete team. I was rooting for McNabb to beat Brady. Didn't happen though. Like you said, supporting cast. McNabb had a strong supporting cast that year. Brady had a better one. Both put up spirited performances. Brady had to do less.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

earthquake
Member

14 years ago

#75

We can find random people on the internet to agree with either viewpoint, and i shouldn't have said that you can't find *anyone*, i should have said you couldn't find anyone who knows a damn about football, or a quality GM in the league that would take that trade.

This has less to do with Rodgers than it does with young, pro-bowl level, franchise QBs that are going to be the face of your team for the next 5-10-15 years. I would group these guys in there as well:

Rodgers
Brees
Rivers
Ryan
Schaub

These teams simply would not give up these guys for that trade, if they would, the Rams would jump on it in a heartbeat. QB is not a position you just grab on a whim, look at teams like the Lions and Bears who have been trying to find a QB for the last 30 years! There are just as many if not more, Joey Harringtons, Rex Groessmans, Tim Couchs, and Ryan Leafs than there are players the quality of Rodgers, Rivers, etc. The fact is, that 1/3rd of all the teams in the league would be seriously interested in trading for these guys, but you simply do not trade away franchise quarterbacks that arent Crybabys or Raplistburgers.

Again, look at the Cutler trade, 2 firsts and a 3rd for a malcontent QB seeking a new blockbuster contract, that has NEVER had a winning season. This is where market Value starts, and it goes up and up for any of the guys on the list above.

blank

dhazer
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#76

Well first off I'm trying to find where someone said Ben will be in the HOF, and from reading over at PPO looks like the majority of the people agree with me so far, as one stated

No player is worth that amount. And if they were, no team would be willing to trade for them. You're losing 2 draft picks which probably result in starting players, and a potential starter in the 3rd rounder.

I'd say a likely trade of that magnitude would be more like swapping 1st round picks, you receive their 2nd or 3rd, and they get Rodgers.

The #1 overall pick is so incredibly valuable. They are potentially getting a player better than Aaron Rodgers who is 21-22 years old.

or this one is exactly what I was getting at

In a heart beat.

Like I said before, the #1 overall pick, #33, and #65 are tremendously valuable.

Add that to the Packers current picks and they have 11 overall, with 6 in the first 3 rounds.

That's recipe for a monster draft class.

People would forget we still have our draft picks. I liked what the one guy said that we could pick up Jason Campbell for cheap and he would be serviceable and never know what he could do with the weapons we have.

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

Packers_Finland
Registered

14 years ago

#77

That Jason Campbell, serviceable part is just hilarious.

It's almost impossible to win a Super Bowl without an amazing QB. Unless you have the best defense in the league, it's impossible to even get near the Super Bowl without an amazing QB.

QB's win, that's the most important position. That's why you can't trade these young top 5 QBs.

This is a placeholder

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#78

Wait, what's going on in this thread? Are we six pages deep into discussing trading Aaron Rodgers, who only threw for more than 8,000 yards, 58 TD's with only 20 interceptions in his first two years of starting?

Man, I have to agree with Vikesrule when he says we're ungrateful for what we have.

But I'll join in because it's fun. :)

If we landed the 1st overall, 33rd overall, and 65th overall added to our current allotment of draft picks for Aaron Rodgers. I'd be hesitant on it, but that's an awful lot to pass up on.

The picking up of Jason Campbell sounds nice, but I just don't think he can take the Packers to the promised land.

After thinking about it ... it's a great package, but I'll take Rodgers over a crap shoot with the extra picks.

Considering how much dhazer hates Ted Thompson, he'd also side with keeping Rodgers as well. How do I verify this statement? Because he thinks Ted sucks at everything he does, including drafts. In his perception, giving Ted more picks is like giving Stevie Wonder more bullets ...

dhazer
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#79

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

Ya I know Finny Rex Grossman is an elite qb, along with Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Jeff Hostlitlier do I need to keep going?

You never know what Campbell could be on a good team, plus you can draft a Bradford or Clausen and let him sit for a year or 2. We supposedly have the awesome defense so we would be ok. Hell think of the players we could get and be set for years to come instead of good at one position for another 5 years we could be set at alot of positions.

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

Packers_Finland
Registered

14 years ago

#80

"dhazer" wrote:

Ya I know Finny Rex Grossman is an elite qb, along with Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Jeff Hostlitlier do I need to keep going?

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

And they all had terrific defenses. Brad Johnson was better at the time than Campbell is now. Rich Gannon didn't win, but even if he did he was good enough to be considered amazing (at the time). Grossman didn't win either. Look at the defense Dilfer had, and read my post. Possibly one of the best defensive units at the time.

Of course there will always be a couple of exceptions (and it speaks volumes that you have to go back to the 80s to find enough). 9 out of 10 times the Super Bowl winning team has an excellent QB under center. And when they don't, they have an outstanding defense. We don't have that defense (what with giving up 50 points vs the Cardinals and all), so we need to have that amazing QB.

My point: When you have a QB that you feel can carry your team (which Rodgers could've done unless our defense gave up 50+ points) all the way, you don't trade him.

This is a placeholder

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (6m) : Merry Christmas!

beast (8h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (16h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (21h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (23h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS